Sexism works both ways:

*I forgot to add me in the first box. Oh well!
*OC* (I'm not a guy, I just thought of this)

Hey honey, my oar wont
start. oan you fix it for
YOU ARE EIC)
Just because NOT ALL MEN ARE
think that T . HOW To FIE CARE
AND WORK AND
PRC) VADE. YOU' RE I;
nor GRATEFUL FOR lit
automatically
know about
oars? You think -
that T ANYTHING T DO.
in the DAMN HATE YOU.
GARAGE? 17 HUH? l
And you' made a sandwich
This was all before. But that still didn' t
so uncalled stop you from ranting when T
for. T thought asked you to make me one.
you knew how
to fix oars.
You' done it
before.

Yes, and as much as I DO think that the comic was made by some kid who was hurt by a girl, there may yet be some truth to it. I mean, how often do you hear women saying "I hate all men! They're so dumb and are all the same," or otherwise outright bashing all males regardless of personal knowledge of them? How do people react to this? Usually by 1 or 2 people saying "Oh, we're not all like that.." and others agreeing with not a second thought. Now, how often do you hear people not doing anything of that caliber but maybe saying a joke that involves a less than intelligent woman or such? This usually receives a lot more negative feedback and a rep of being a sexist pig.

People seem to forget that sexism goes both ways. People either stop making jokes all together or learn to take a joke.

The difference is, as is with all generalizations and stereotyping, the group that has been oppressed the longest (female, black, gays) seem to have earned their right to say whatever they want.
Also, when it comes to women hating on the men, by letting it go, it's another example of how women aren't respected. Of course they hate men. Isn't that cute? They think they have an opinion. Let's ignore it.
Furthermore, when a man says, "I hate women, and I want to stalk them and rape them, the dumb sluts." it's a much more serious threat than if a woman were to say it about men, based on size and, as above stated, length of oppression.

True, but at the same time, I believe that saying that, regardless of sex, race, target, or sexual orientation, is just unintelligent. Hating an entire population base solely upon a few bad apples is just stupid. This is the closest that people in America/other first-world countries, have come to true equality. (And I do assume that the comic is BASED in a first-world country.) Yes, there ARE going to be idiots who just clap their hands over their ears and spout off with nonsense about other sex, race and etc., but don't assume that everyone is like that.

You haven't earned anything by being born a women or a man, or black or white. It's sexism and it hurts when you say "I hate all men" of course I have once said the same thing about women thus making me a sexist for saying it. My point is this sense of entitlement is going to hurt your friendships with people you know. And of course it's worse when a guy threatens to hurt women. but this is similar to a women wanting to go and cut a guys balls off. It's not funny either way.

As a women, I completely disagree with your comment. People who have been oppressed in the past should actually be more tolerant and understanding of people! Saying 'I hate men they're all the same' is the exact same thing as 'I hate women they're all the same'. It's all sexism and it's all unacceptable.
Also, to do with your last point. Women aren't big on being rapists. There are female rapists out there but there are still way more male than female. Though if a woman were to say to me 'I hate men! I just want to chop of their penises because they're stupid pigs!' It would still be a threat of some sorts.

True, but say it were not making a sandwich, rather, "Hey, could you stay home and take care of the house and kids?" Not all men know how to do this, but it would would still be filed under sexist and indeed that is a big job.

And my friend we are at the pinicle of evolution here! Someone with a pony for an avatar and someone with dolan for an avatar are talking normaly! This is like a once in a lifetime occurance! Usually there trying to troll each other, but i feel progress has been made here!

>be in theatre
>lots of gay guys
>go to cast party
>gay guy is giving out lap dances
>I don't have a seat
>sit in lap dance chair
>only straight guy offers me a lap dance
>I stare at him for a second
>"okay, do what you want."
>he stares at my lap
>he says that was the straight guy lap dance
>and i'm like "that was the best lap dance ever."
>he says, I'll give you a real one if you go make me a sandwich
>I push the chair to the other side of the room
>I slowly back away..

actually i did pretty good. read the textbooks then did more research on my own time. in case you only know the twisted side of the event. before 1918 the right to vote was dependent upon how much land you owned. status not sex. 1918-1928 all men voted at 21 and all women voted at 30. in 1928 men and women voted at 21. however at the time all those women were complaining they didn't get to vote at the same age as men. there male counterparts would most likely never get to vote because they were drafted to war.

well lets go through your claims. you want to live your dreams? **** you. what exactly were these dreams? working everyday in high risk jobs? nope women still don't want the dangerous jobs. getting paid for your effort instead of your worth? well seems like you got it. next, want to leave the house? nope. so in a time when a person couldn't go 15 feet from there house without being in danger and women requesting that men protect them it seems absolutely reasonable that the man wouldn't want to go out whenever the women wanted. forced to get married? that worked both ways. man would beat you if he disagreed with you. seeing as how the man was fully responsible for anything the women did. it seems reasonable the man would stop his wife from getting him executed for her actions. piece of meat? men traded there labor for women's sexuality. they were both "meat". do you know how dangerous EVERYTHING was back then? with the mortality rate back then it was necessary that women had many baby's.

men wouldn't "allow" women to follow their dreams? now im assuming you mean men who would not hire women. you may not know this but men in general are built more suitable to work and the few women who were strong enough to do the same work were not worth the investment in amenities. women in high risk jobs. another thing you may not know the physical requirements for many of these high risk jobs were lowered to accommodate the less able women. the assertion that only men would commit crimes against women is laughable and very much so sexist. but people are not the only danger . who got the better deal out of marriage? Cui bono is a very good way to look into it. the man and the women both received offspring and their genetics were passed on. the women had to raise the children. the man had to work enough in order to support himself, his wife, and his children. which job is more difficult is up for debate but in my opinion its a pretty fair trade and if anything benefits the women more. yeah how beneficial to men there be a law that men would be publicly beaten if they mistreated there wives and if there wives beat them the men would be publicly shunned. if you think that there is no reason to beat a women but there are reasons to beat a man then you are a douche. im not saying sex for labor is "right" im saying thats how it was. the most dangerous thing a human could do at that time was exist. having a baby is dangerous but so was getting a cut, eating the wrong food, and even ******* was ******* dangerous. having only one baby was a definite waste of time. two is one, one is none. and btw im actually a pretty nice guy until you try to act like im a piece of **** because of my gender, which is exactly what the misandrist modern feminists do.

I know that this isn't completely related to the conversation (*cough*orinaneargument*cough*) but in modern society a lot of women are expected to work at a their job AND do the house cleaning/cooking/child rearing when they get home. Many call it the 'second job'. Just puttin' it out there.
Also, men just wouldn't allow women to work. That's it. It wasn't an issue of not hiring, it was an issue of being expected to stay home and pop out babies. This happened because it was just what people grew up to believe was the way of doing things their whole life but it still doesn't make it right.

sure we thought they couldn't do it. the whole glass ceiling thing now. and even when these women who could do the job just as well as anyone else ran companies into the ground they call it the glass cliff or some **** . men kept them from getting the job and them intentionally gave them the job so they would fail. don't see women raping people ? that's why 40 percent of reported sexual molestation are by women. women don't attack women? that's why the relationships that are most prone to violence are lesbian relationships. women didn't get the better deal out of marriage based upon an assertion that men were oppressive? i have no clue how the law worked back then? what laws are you talking about the natural protective instinct that the feminist have played upon to get you to follow? or maybe the infamous rule of thumb that was part of a cartoon and there was no record of it actually existing. the only laws ever made with wife beating in mind were laws against it. **** even British common law said that the only thing a man could do as punishment for his wife's behavior was to lock her in the house which could only be done if she was doing something that could get him put in prison. i never said you judged me by my gender i said feminists do and my original comment was just pointing out a hypocrisy of today that feminists ignore.